orionsbelt

If you ask OpenAI to generate an image of your dog as Superman, it will often start to do so, and then it will realize it is copyrighted, and stop. This seems sensible to me.

Isn’t it the ultimate creative result that is copyright infringement, and not merely that a model was trained to understand something very well?

40 years ago we were clearly compute bound. Today, I think it's fairly clear we are not; if there is anything a human can do that an AI can't, it's because we lack the algorithms, not the compute.

So the question becomes, now that we have sufficient compute capacity, how long do you think it will take the army of intelligent creative humans (comp sci PhDs, and now accelerate by AI assistance) to develop the algorithmic improvements to take AI from LLMs to something human level?

Nobody knows the answer to the above, and I could be very wrong, but my money would bet on it being <30 years, if not dramatically sooner (my money is on under 10).

It seems to me like the building blocks are all here. Computers can now see, process scenes in real time, move through the world as robots, speak and converse with humans in real time, use tools, create images (imagine?), and so forth. Work is continuing to give LLMs memory, expanded context, and other improvements. As those areas all get improved on, tied together, recursively improved, etc., at some point I think it will be hard to argue it is not intelligence.

Where we are with LLMs is Kitty Hawk. The world now knows that flight (true human level intelligence) is possible and within reach, and I strongly believe the progress from here on out will continue to be rapid and extreme.

Of course, progress could stall out, but we appear to have sufficient compute to do anything a human brain can do, and in areas, AIs are already far better than humans. With the amount of brain power working in, and capital pouring into, this area, including work on improving algorithms, I think this essay is fundamentally correct that the takeoff has started.

There’s been other stuff from Sam Altman that puts it around this summer, so even if it gets delayed past July, it seems pretty clear it’s coming within the next few months.

Although it does feel likely that at minimum, they are neck and neck with Google and others.

If you ask different people the above question, and if you vary it based on type of task, or which human, you would get different answers. But as time goes on, more and more people would become impressed with what the human can do.

I don't know when LLMs will stop progressing, but all I know is they continue to progress at what is to me a similar astounding rate as to a growing child. For me personally, I never used LLMs for anything, and since o3 and Gemini 2.5 Pro, I use them all the time for all sorts of stuff.

You may be smarter than me and still not impressed, but I'd try the latest models and play around, and if you aren't impressed yet, I'd bet money you will be within 3 years max (likely much earlier).

Of course, you are not going to write down that you will win the lottery and then win.

But most people are their own worst enemy and self limiting to some extent. Focusing on what you want in life, and affirming it to yourself over and over, is effectively a way to brain wash yourself to change your own self limiting behavior and it’s not surprising that this is often successful.

1. OpenAI is apparently in the process of building a social network.

2. OpenAI is apparently working with Jonny Ive on some sort of hardware.

3. OpenAI is increasingly working on "memory" as a LLM feature. Users may be less likely to switch as an LLM increasingly feels like a person that knows you, understands you, has a history with you, etc.

4. Google and MSFT are leveraging their existing strengths. Perhaps you will stick with Gemini given deep integration with Android, Google Drive, Sheets, Docs, etc.

5. LLMs, as depressing as this sounds, will increasingly be used for romantic/friend purposes. These users may not want to switch, as it would be like breaking up and finding a new partner.

6. Your chat history, if it can't be easily exported/imported, may be a sticky feature, especially if it can be improved (e.g. easily search, cross-reference, chats, like a supercharged interconnecting note app with brains).

I could list 100 more of these. Perhaps none of the above will happen, but again, they have 400M weekly users and they will find ways to keep them. It's a lot easier to keep users that have a habit of showing up, then getting them in the first place. There's a reason that Google is treating this like an emergency; they are at serious risk of having their search cash cow permanently disrupted if they don't act fast to win.

Personally, deep research and o3 have been transformative, taking LLMs from something I have never used to something that I am using daily.

Even if the progress ends up plateauing (which I do not believe will happen in the near term), behaviors are changing; OpenAI is capturing users, and taking them from companies like Google. Google may be able to fight back and win - Gemini 2.5 Pro is great - but any company sitting this out risks being unable to capture users back from Open AI at a later date.

https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1907456765215588734

I think he’s also surrounded by yes men who are afraid to tell him when his ideas are wrong.

The right seems to be of the view that a policy closer to Singapore is smarter than that of, say, San Francisco.

In other words, increase penalties/enforcement of drug importation and treat drug dealers harshly, instead of spending lots of money on services for drug users, which arguably just leads to enabling them to continue to lead the life of a drug addict.

From my perspective, there's pros and cons to both approaches, but it's not unreasonable to look at a place like San Francisco and come away with the view that some of this funding is making things worse, not better, even for the addicts themselves.

1. To complete the final identity verification step when initially applying for benefits. This happens only once in a person's life.

2. If one wants to change which bank account their payment gets direct deposited to. This should happen very rarely for someone that is elderly, has mobility limitations, etc. Perhaps once or never.

In addition, the identify verification can be done online in a modern way, very easily.

A $100M estimate for current fraud is well within the realm of reason and is supported by trend lines from prior Biden-era publications.

The people you are worried about "disenfranchising" are therefore the following set: someone who has nobody close to them that could assist them with a basic website sign-up and ID verification online application, who cannot figure it out themselves, and who cannot travel somewhere in person for whatever reason.

What other institution - other than the federal government - would willingly allow $100M of fraud to occur to avoid inconveniencing the above group?

I acknowledge this policy may harm some people, but so does $100M of fraud, which is only getting worse every year.

1. He never said he wants to "round up" people and place them in wellness farms. He said that if you are convicted a crime, this would be an alternative to prison. If this was said by someone on the left, it would be seen as pushing for restorative justice over punitive justice.

2. He never said people going to these wellness farms would be denied their prescription medications. He said they would go off illegal drugs like fentanyl (obviously), and that they could also try to reduce their reliance on prescription medications "if they wanted to". Plenty of people in this country are overmedicated and on multiple RXs that they are addicted to and have difficulty coming off of.

The discourse around his intent here is just completely paranoid and/or dishonest.

I agree with you for someone that has a miserable client-service job, such as an investment banker that is still slaving away so he can keep up with the Joneses.

But Musk, Zuckerberg, Ellison can do whatever the fuck they want. They don't need to take shit from anyone, and they get to build products and shape the world.

Musk, for example, wants to get humans to Mars. To the extent he cares about money anymore, it's in service of that goal, which does require a LOT of resources.

Note that I am not arguing whether or not this instance is justified or corrupt/BS, just explaining that each administration can direct what cases they want to enforce. You can’t prosecute everything, and there is political judgment involved as to what is a priority.